On Nov 3, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Remi Forax wrote: > On 11/03/2012 03:11 PM, Lance Andersen - Oracle wrote: >> I revised the webrev, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/8002212/webrev.01, >> taking into account the vast majority of Remi's suggestions. > > in SerialJavaObject, hasStaticFields doesn't work, the original code doesn't > work because > it only check for fields that are declared static but not for fields that are > by example public static. > > private static boolean hasStaticFields(Field[] fields) { > for (Field field : fields) { > if ( Modifier.isStatic(field.getModifiers())) { > return true; > } > } > return false; > } > > This may cause compatibility issue because despite the specification, the > original code > will let objects that have a static field to be serialized.
I cannot make the change above as it breaks too many tests and I would prefer to go with the less is more scenario. As I think I mentioned before, I do not think the original authors really thought through these classes and thankfully they are not used much, if at all. > > Also, in readObject, if obj is null, the code should throw an IOException > because > it's not possible to create a SerialJavaObject with null has parameter > (because obj.getClass() > that implictly checks null in the constructor). I made the change to readObject. I did not put an explicit check in the constructor but will do that under a separate bug I also added the comment to SerialDataLink and removed the read/writeObject http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/8002212/webrev.02 Best Lance > > All other classes are Ok for me. > >> >> I also added SerialStruct to the webrev. > > SerialStruct is Ok for me. > >> >> Have a great weekend. > > Have a nice weekend too. > >> >> Best >> Lance > > cheers, > Rémi >
Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 lance.ander...@oracle.com
